User talk:Messinwithbruce

Edits[edit]

Why did you undo my edit and then do the exact same thing. BraveSpider13 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)BraveSpider13[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Messinwithbruce! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Laun chba ller 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Singer UK series 1 poster question[edit]

Hi there. Just for my own purposes, I was just wondering where you found/obtained this image from. Would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Magitroopa (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Anton Du Beke. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Laun chba ller 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should consider any change in the title of that biography to be potentially controversial. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for instructions on how to start a discussion to obtain consensus to change the title to Anton du Beke on the talk page.

Though I do note that just recently at 20:06, 26 November 2020 Launchballer moved page Anton du Beke to Anton Du Beke without leaving a redirect with the rationale "(according to own websites, social media and bbc strictly page - most newspapers seem to be copying us)".

Launchballer should have left the redirect so as not to break links. I see this is because they did a WP:Page mover swap.

Given that this was a longstanding redirect dating from 22 March 2007 (it just appears to be a self-redirect because the page was swapped), I think it's within your rights to request a revert of this recent, undiscussed, controversial move at WP:RM/TR. Or just ask me here. But please consider Launchballer's reasoning first. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you were asked to request the move, both of your attempts at moving the page constituted page move vandalism, and your second attempt constituted edit warring, which you've previously been warned about. I have requested a page move, please now wait for the discussion to be closed. I also dispute Wbm1058's claim that I broke links by not leaving a redirect, given that I used pageswap, which automatically replaced the redirect for me.--Laun chba ller 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing and copyright violation[edit]

If you closely paraphrase a plot summary or any other prose like you did here and here, your editing privileges are likely to be interrupted. I'm sure someone told you that copying is unethical? Well, often it's not legal, either, and it's in violaton of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RuPaul’s Drag Race UK logo.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RuPaul’s Drag Race UK logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary West[edit]

Hi. Just wish to advise that I've reverted your edit to Rosemary West, which you did based on her apparent identity change. Apart from the fact that no citation has been supplied, the news itself is cited only by sources since deprecated or tabloid-y/"tread caution". Even at that, the news is not solid enough (which adds onto why the current sources are not reliable). We should wait for consensus based on more solid evidence, and particularly from other independent outlets. -- Tytrox (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Come Dancing Season 18[edit]

Please do not undo factually correct, referenced edits in the future. Your edit has been reversed. If you choose to enter into an edit war, you will be reported and blocked from editing.167.98.138.18 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re an IP address hun. You’re not in a position to tell people whether they are going to be ‘blocked or not’ Messinwithbruce (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm DarkGlow. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Martine McCutcheon, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! – DarkGlow (✉) 20:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Myleene Klass. Thank you. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sue Vincent[edit]

The article Sue Vincent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A working actress, but with only 1 possible significant role, does not meet WP:NACTOR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing on Ice Series 13[edit]

Now as Denise van Outen has withdrawn, shall we leave her in the table or get rid of it? --Annamargarita0 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sue Vincent for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sue Vincent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Vincent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Rufus Hound. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 02:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RuPaul's Drag Race UK Series 1 poster.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RuPaul's Drag Race UK Series 1 poster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:You're the One (The Emotions song)[edit]

Hello, Messinwithbruce. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "You're the One".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:You're the Best (The Emotions song)[edit]

Hello, Messinwithbruce. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "You're the Best".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming other people's photos as your own[edit]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other editor's user pages[edit]

Hello, Messinwithbruce,

Please do not edit other editor's user pages (except their talk page) as you did here. It is not appropriate unless material violates copyright or is a BLP violation. Also, please read WP:Spoiler. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

Spoilers are not prohibited per WP:SPOILERS, by the way. Take a read. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Messinwithbruce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’ve been blocked for a period of two weeks for a supposed WP:BLP issue, adding unsourced information to Faye Brookes. If you look at my editing history you can clearly see I ALWAYS source my edits to pages such as Dancing on Ice (series 13) and Gemma Collins and I am a frequent contributor to both pages. I have also created and fully sourced the pages Sue Vincent and Montanna Thompson so I am fully aware of WP:BLP.The information I added to Brookes’ page this evening was an update on her position in the competition. Her appearance on the show is already confirmed by a source. I wasn’t aware that an update regarding Brookes’ partner change (which is detailed on the Dancing on Ice (series 13) page itself, I know this because I added the information and reference myself). I did not think that another needed to be added for such trivial information such as a partner swap, however if every piece of trivial information I add has to be sourced in order for me to avoid blocks in the future, I will happily abide by this rule. 2 weeks seems excessive also and I’d like this to be reconsidered. Regards Messinwithbruce (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sorry, I misread the edit history. Given your commitment to source your BLP edits, I will remove this block. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If information is "trivial" it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia- but in any event, will you also stop posting inappropriate comments on your user page? 331dot (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:331dot first of all information regarding a contestants elimination from the show is related to the subject so yes it should be on Wikipedia. Second of all I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but if you mean the fact my User page has been deleted by User:Liz twice, it’s because another user vandalised my page. I think it’s important to understand the facts before you pass comment. Regards Messinwithbruce (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read and understood WP:BLP, you'd have seen this:

“

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.

”

A statement such as her partner change is likely to be challenged if you don't add a source. Because how do we know if it's true without a source? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: And, if you did the first check into this user's BLP contributions, you'd have noticed that they used this source to back up Montanna Thompson's DOB... a primary source which doesn't confirm that it's the right person, or her actual birthday... – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DarkGlow Well, my impression was that the block was for a more immediate problem than a week old edit, such as a completely unsourced edit. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot You're correct about that, it was for recent unsourced BLP edits. But your grounds for unblocking this user were down to their "commitment" to BLP edits. I'd hardly describe sourcing a DOB with a genealogy website as committed. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not honor their commitment, which includes that sources for BLP edits are proper sources- they will be reblocked. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DarkGlow There is only one registered birth under the name ‘Montanna Thompson’ in the United Kingdom and Wales. So there is nothing else to suggest it isn’t the subject in question. It seems you are nit picking to find more issues when the source I’ve provided is in fact reliable. A source has now been added to the information I added to Faye Brookes. Regards Messinwithbruce (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we even know she was born in the UK? It's coming off as original research. There is no such thing as "nitpicking" with a BLP... we are representing real people here, every detail should be correct. But believe me, if you want me to be more tedious by going through your contributions more regularly, I will. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source confirms Thompson was born in the United Kingdom and a quick google search will confirm this also. But you don’t need me to tell you this as you are fully aware of this information as we edit similar pages and share the same interests. You even watch the same show and are fully aware Thompson was born in the U.K. However if the source I’ve used isn’t, in your opinion acceptable, I’m not going to dispute it on this occasion. It’s your prerogative if you wish to go through my contributions. I have nothing to hide. Regards Messinwithbruce (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that though? She easily could've been born abroad and moved to the UK like many BLPs I've edited the pages of. Original research. And any editor will tell you that a genealogy website is an unreliable source, not just me. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice UK Series 10[edit]

I think there's going to be 2 semi-finals this year. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Annamargarita0: Seems likely if there’s no knockout rounds. If not That’d mean 24 in the semi finals.Messinwithbruce (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD[edit]

Hi there, re: this, a reminder that when content you submit is reverted, you should open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for the change you wish to make, not to resubmit the change, as that can be perceived as edit-warring. I have done that for you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you. I was not joking. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I don’t see how making one revision is edit warring? You decided to revert the entire article instead of manually changing the tables back, which in turn changed fixes that I’d made to the episode table.Messinwithbruce (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Race ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once is not persistently. I might add.Messinwithbruce (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... but three times is. See WP:BRD. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for trying to keep articles consistent.[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Messinwithbruce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’ve been blocked by User:Drmies for apparent ‘disruptive editing’. The RuPaul’s Drag Race articles have followed the same format for years but the British articles have been the target of vandalism, reverting constant changes, preventing new information from being introduced, and all round ‘I want it this way and because I’ve been on here longer than you it’s staying that way’. These articles need to be discussed on a wider scale and not just with British editors. The reason for my edit was simply trying to keep articles consistent with each other. In no way am I a ‘vandal’ and I think the fact I’ve been blocked for a week just for trying to keep articles consistent is unfair. Hence why I am requesting an unblock.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for trying to make an article consistent. You also were never called a vandal; you keep bringing that word up but that was not the reason for your block. You were told by Drmies to stop editing the articles in question, not because you were wrong, but because repeatedly carrying on a dispute is not productive. He gave you a menu of options to resolve the dispute, and specifically told you not to repeat the same edits again. You ignored him. That's why you are blocked. If you wish to be unblocked, you should indicate some understanding of the rationale for blocking you, and do not deflect your behavior onto other things: Your block was for your behavior, and unless you can convince us you intend to change the behavior and instead use the article talk pages to achieve a consensus, the block will remain. If you can do those things, then the block may be lifted early. Jayron 32 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Messinwithbruce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked by User:Drmies for disruptive editing on RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). I tend to just edit pages without looking at ongoing talk page discussions so it was only when I read the full extent of WP:MOS, and the misuse of WP:COLOR that I realise the Contestant progress and lip sync tables are extremely difficult for colour blind users and readers to see. I’ve just read WP:BRD and I understand that due to the discussion that was ongoing, it was wrong of me to go ahead and revert the tables to how they were before the discussion. I can be very slapdash with my edits and it’s not until it’s fully explained to me (like how WP:BLP was) that I understand Wikipedia’s regulations. I’ll avoid editing the Drag Race articles in future, especially whilst this dispute is ongoing, and will read messages left on my talk page before reintroducing edits that administrators have reverted. Kind Regards Messinwithbruce (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppet of ZestyLemonz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So, Bruce, you seem to have a habit of doing that childish thing with all the colors in these articles full of trivia--I guess that's good to know. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TheWheelBBC.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheWheelBBC.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]